Why Don’t More College Leaders Back Free Speech?

You might think that higher education leaders, who have almost all been steeped in the academic traditions of the free exchange of ideas, would uniformly stand up for free speech. Learning about those traditions is, after all, a key part of what college should be about for students.

Sadly, college officials often bow down to bullying students when they demand that people they assume they disagree with — I say “assume” because the students often know virtually nothing about the individuals they want to silence – be prevented from speaking. Either they just want to avoid the constant trouble that these zealous students are apt to cause if they won’t go along, or they sympathize with the students and see no problem in declaring some people and their ideas intolerable. Whatever the reason, they are complicit in helping to tear down the intellectual framework of our civilization.

The good news is that occasionally we find higher education leaders with the backbone to say “no” to demands that individuals be silenced. One recent case involves the outspoken and iconoclastic professor Camille Paglia, who has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984.

Paglia disagrees with much of the feminist belief system. For example (as we read in this Inside Higher Ed story), she has criticized women students who file rape charges long after the incident, saying that when women bring complaints that way, “it is not feminism,” but instead stems from “a bourgeois culture of excuses.” Paglia is also skeptical about transgenderism.

For those and other offenses against “progressive” ideology, a group of students drafted a petition calling for Professor Paglia to be fired and “replaced by a queer person of color.”

But the university’s president, David Yager, firmly rejected the petition. He responded to the students, “I firmly believe that limiting the range of voices in society erodes our democracy. Universities, moreover, are at the heart of the revolutionary notion of free expression: promoting the free exchange of ideas is part of the core reason for their existence….We are dedicated to fostering a climate conducive to respectful intellectual debate that empowers and equips our students to meet the challenges they will face in their futures.”

Well said, President Yager.

For every college leader like Yager, however, there seem to be several who cave into the demands of the speech suppressors.

Consider the administration of Middlebury College. Middlebury was the site of the infamous riot to prevent Charles Murray from speaking in 2017. Ryszard Legutko, a philosophy professor at Jagiellonian University in Poland and a member of the European Parliament, was recently scheduled to give a lecture entitled “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.”

Might Legutko have some worthwhile insights about that? Unfortunately, no one at Middlebury was able to find out, because a group of “progressive” students and faculty members objected to allowing him to speak. They complained about Legutko’s criticism of multiculturalism, feminism, and homosexuality. Therefore, to the opponents, he was a bigot who shouldn’t be permitted to address the campus.

Although the faculty members who had arranged the talk argued that it should go ahead, the school’s administration gave in. Provost Jeff Cason sent an email just hours before Legutko’s talk was scheduled, saying, “In the interest of ensuring the safety of students, faculty, staff, and community members, the lecture by Ryszard Legutko will not take place. This decision was not taken lightly. It was based on an assessment of our ability to respond effectively to potential security and safety risks for both the lecture and the event students had planned in response.” (For the details of the story, see this Washington Free Beacon piece.)

Is it true that Middlebury College just couldn’t protect everyone’s safety if the talk went ahead? One person who isn’t convinced is Charles Murray, who wrote on April 19 that Middlebury’s president could have guaranteed safety with a simple campus pronouncement.

In the lecture hall, you will be free to engage Professor Legutko’s ideas during the Q&A period. You are not free to interrupt the lecture. Anyone who does so will be suspended for the rest of the academic term. Shouts and boos will be considered interruptions. For that matter, applause will be considered an interruption. It is a lecture, not a stump speech. Treat it as such.

Did it not occur to the top brass at Middlebury that a threat of serious punishment for misbehavior would keep the students in line? Or did they not want to lose their “woke” credentials by standing up for free speech?

Even though the Middlebury administration had no backbone, one professor dared to invite Mr. Legutko to speak in his class. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, political science professor Matthew Dickinson asked his class of nine students if they wanted to hear him and all agreed. Word spread around campus, and 45 students came to the class. Legutko gave his talk and afterward there was a spirited and civil discussion. No thanks to the college, ideas were exchanged.

Another disappointing case involves Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield. He had been invited to give the commencement address at the Liberal Arts College of Concordia University in Montreal. The college is devoted to the study of great books, and that is what Mansfield was going to discuss.

Then, abruptly, Mansfield was disinvited. Why? As he explains in this Wall Street Journal piece, “What had taken place…was a faculty meeting prompted by a letter from 12 alumni that demanded a reversal of the committee’s invitation because my ‘scholarly and public corpus heavily traffics in damaging and discredited philosophies of gender and culture.’”

The disinvitation came from the Principal of the Liberal Arts College, Mark Russell. Rather than forthrightly saying that college officials had caved in when pressured by a few leftist opponents, his letter tried to evade the reality of the situation by saying, “we were unable to reach consensus as to what we wanted to achieve with this event.”

Like Middlebury’s, that was a lame excuse. But at least Russell didn’t overtly side with the anti-speech forces, as was the case recently at the University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC). Daily Wire writer Michael Knowles was on campus to give a talk, and his conservative views were known to a group of hecklers who did everything they could (including spraying him with what turned out to be a non-toxic substance) to keep him from communicating them.

And how did UMKC officials respond? Writing on American Thinker, Jack Cashill explains. “The missive UMKC chancellor Mauli Agrawal sent to the ‘campus community’ after the event reads like a hostage letter. To describe Knowles’ views, Agrawal used the words ‘controversial,’ ‘unpopular,’ and ‘extreme.’ Agrawal concluded his plea for civility by asking students ‘to stay true to our values in the face of provocation and to respond to bias and intolerance with reason and courage.’”

In other words, “Way to go, hecklers!” The only way there won’t be future protests against un-PC speakers at this campus will be if none agree to come. The hecklers have the green light to shout down anyone they regard as “biased.”

So in three of these four schools, when demands were made to silence dissenting voices, the administrators acquiesced. That reinforces an idea that all too many college students already harbor, namely that free speech is not a universal right, but can be curtailed for anyone with “wrong” opinions. And thus they sow the seeds of endless strife.

One thought on “Why Don’t More College Leaders Back Free Speech?”

“Did it not occur to the top brass at Middlebury that a threat of serious punishment for misbehavior would keep the students in line?”

It simply wouldn’t be believed — there have been so many times and places where the radical leftist thugs have gotten away with bad behavior that there is a sense of entitlement where they genuinely believe that they are entitled to get away with it.

Above and beyond this, Koors & Silverglate got it right 20 years ago when they stated that the philosophy of most administrators is “no trouble on my watch” — to appease the violent (and oppress the peaceful) so as to avoid “trouble.”

Middlebury avoided “trouble” — that what was behind how they dealt with the chemistry professor who asked the truly obtuse question on concentrations of Hydrogen Cyanide — attack both him and the student publication that reported it. The mantra is “no trouble on my watch” — to do whatever is necessary to have “peace in our time.”

The sad thing is that this thuggery is going to inexorably progress to the point where people wind up dead, at which point real cops and real courts are going to have to do something about it. And for those who worry about the radical right, I suggest looking at how we are actually encouraging them to be violent, as the podium belongs to the most violent thugs.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Please! Support Our Work and DONATE

Minding the Campus, the website written mostly by courageous professors who choose to educate rather than proselytize students to their world view, needs your help. Even a small donation makes a big difference. Click here to donate now.

Notable

Western Civilization = White Supremacy

New York City school administrators have been taught that pillars of Western Civilization such as objectivity, individualism, and even belief in the written word all are examples of … white supremacy, theNew York Post reports.

A slide presentation obtained by the Post from the workshop “Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change” includes claims that a belief in an “ultimate truth” (objectivity) leads to a dismissal of “alternate viewpoints or emotions” as “bad” (this is straight out of the critical race theory playbook), and that emphasis on the written word overlooks the “ability to relate to others” and leads to “teaching that there is only ‘one right way’ to do something.”

Other “hallmarks” of white supremacy include a “sense of urgency,” “quantity over quality,” and “perfectionism.” Read more at The College Fix

The Civility Problem

Maybe a few courses on how to create a civil society would help America's so-called "social warriors" learn how to deal with their fellow men and women. Let's start with Amherst College in Massachusetts, where former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to address the ongoing issue of free speech on campus. Campus Reform reports that Sessions got a dose of today's SJW tactics when a stinkbomb was set off before he went on stage. Then, a walkout was staged by a gay pride group punctuating the assault on the former A.G. Stinkbombs? What is this, 7th grade?

Studying 'Angry White Males'

The University of Kansas has approved a course called “angry white male studies,” open to all students willing to take a women’s studies course first. The course on white males will explore recent changes in demographics since the 1950s. Republican Congressman Ron Estes took a dim view, arguing that ”KU is offering a class that divides the student population and could pose a TitleIX violation by creating a hostile campus movement based on gender.” The course will be taught by Christopher Forth, who focuses on gender, fat-shaming, and masculinity.

Erasing White Men from Politics

Believing that courses on American political thought are too fixated on white males, Professor Chad Shomura of the University of Colorado at Denver has solved the problem by banning discussion of white men in his course on the nation’s political thought. This means nothing from Washington, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Rousseau or any of the pre-Obama presidents. Discussion of the Hillary Clinton race for the presidency in 2016 is allowed, but how she managed to lose while apparently “running unopposed” is unclear.

No Free Speech: Heckler Cancels Another Student Meeting

Last week, a group of at least 4 Portland State University police officers stood by and declined to intervene as a heckler with a cowbell single-handedly canceled a College Republicans meeting. This is the second time in 2019 that PSU allowed hecklers or would-be hecklers to shut down campus expression — and the second time the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has demanded the university adhere to its First Amendment obligations. FIRE first wrote to the university Feb. 18 after PSU’s law enforcement unilaterally canceled a meeting of a socialist student group after the founder of the group Patriot Prayer said he would show up.

Be Careful What You Wish For on Social Programs

Nathan Glazer, the last of a group of famous neocon social scientists, died at the age of 95 on January 19 at his home in Cambridge, Mass. (He resisted the label “neocon.”) Glazer consistently warned that vast government plans to improve the lives of the poor often come to grief or create new problems of their own. “The evaluations of the specifics of the first ten years after the launching of (the War on Poverty) confirm that nothing worked and in particular, nothing in education worked.” He concluded that the family was the key institution to positive social change and that rights are inherent in individuals, not groups. The article here by Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute ran in 2011 when President Obama planned an extension of the War on Poverty.

Reader Letter of the Week

There are two real dangers to this anti-white mindset that its proponents don’t seem to comprehend.

First, a minority of foolish and morally bankrupt white people can, will, and do buy all the social justice arguments and place themselves on the other side. That’s how you get white nationalist groups who say, “Yes, it is a power struggle between whites and everyone else, and we intend to come out on top.”

Second, and far more serious, the vast majority of white people who still hold to the tenets of individualism and equality will see the social justice warriors as a real and direct threat to their safety, culture, and future and react accordingly. As when we fought the Nazis and the Communists, there’s no need to agree with an enemy or even hold him in any regard as serious to recognize him and defeat him.

Either way, the result is division, civil unrest, and even war. Unfortunately, in this case, the SJWs have created a landscape in which there is no middle ground. It is one side or the other. The Feminists will fall first because there is no way to have a serious conflict between the sexes, and women are immensely practical creatures. But the other groups will find themselves in a very nasty position of facing a frightened and angry majority that has no intention of offering itself up for sacrifice. And when they mobilize, the “battle” won’t be metaphorical.

David S. Zondy

Write for MTC

Interested in writing for us?

Calling all professors, college newspaper reporters and editors who believe in diversity of thought as well as culture and ethnicity. Minding the Campus aims to expose today’s single lane thought highway at today’s universities and find solutions to the growing monoculture of ideas that silences the contrarians. MTC also has a commitment to due process and reports on how accusations of sexual assault on campus can convict a student who was denied legal representation. If you want to know more, please click here to read more.